Knowledge is the building block of Judaism. Love of God is contingent on what one knows about Him.
ועל פי הדעה--על פי האהבה--אם מעט מעט, ואם הרבה הרבה
I am planning to post from time to time some of the ideas that I develop as I read and think about issues that catch my attention. Usually they relate to Machshava or Halacha especially how they affect our daily life. I am looking forward to learn from all commenters.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Why are the theological ideas of the Medieval Rabbis relevant? Getting things off my chest!

I have chosen not to get too involved in the discussions on various Blogs about proofs for the existence of a First Cause. I have been watching from the sideline and my reluctance to enter the fray has proven prescient – people are talking at and not to each other. Terms are bandied around, Cause, Effect, Contingent, Space/time, creation etc… and each person has a different definition for these words. It is as cacophony of individual languages who do not understand each other, a veritable Tower of Babel. (Maybe that was what the story was referring to as a metaphor.)

I am however deeply pained by what I originally perceived, as irreverent comments thrown out in the heat of the argument, which I subsequently realized were heartfelt. I refer to the irreverence shown by most of our skeptic brethrens to the great thinkers in our heritage – the Rishonim and great Acharonim up to our times. It shows a level of ignorance coupled with arrogance that is beyond my comprehension. The most common argument is that they were wrong as they based their thinking on flawed science that has since been shown to be erroneous. I cannot sit and let this pass without putting in my protest. Let me explain.

The Torah, which is our reason for existence as a people without which Judaism has no meaning, has two components to it – the Legal and the theological. The Legal part which includes societal and ritual laws, the Mitzvot, is meant to help us in our daily existence and bring discipline into our lives. Living an orderly and satisfying life allows one to dedicate himself to the existential quest which is the second component of Torah. Without that component the Torah and keeping the Mitzvot lacks meaning. The theological component has one goal; understanding our existence through finding God and emulating Him. It is a personal quest undertaken within the broader auspices of a community and a people.

It is clear that the Torah was given at the dawn of the Bronze Age. Its divinity is evident because of its relevance then and through the ages up to our times. The way it works is that its followers in each era are obligated to understand its theology in context of the knowledge extant at each period. It is exactly this effort at interpretation and adaptation that focuses us on the important quest for meaning in our existence. Our Rabbis over the generations have shown us the way. We learn from them by understanding how they did it with the knowledge of their time. We therefore can take advantage of their experience and apply tried and true methods for our own needs.

Dismissing the Rabbis, claiming Rambam, Ramban, Rashba, Ralbag, Meiri et al are irrelevant because the science they based their conclusions on no longer is accepted, is the height of arrogance and stupidity. It shows a lack of brains. On the contrary, they took a document given during the times of idolatry and shamanism and showed us that it has exactly the same relevance in dealing with Aristotelian and Platonic cosmology. It is our task to emulate them and do the same in the scientific era of Darwin and Einstein. It will be the task of our descendants to apply the same thinking in a future world where the current science may turn out to be obsolete.

Exploring how they went about it, how they struggled and successfully addressed the issue during their times will give us the tools to succeed in our time. Great thinkers like R. Meir Simcha Hacohen and the Rogatchover, both of Dvinsk, Rav Kook and RYBS A’H are the closest contemporary greats who have begun the process. It is our task to continue this work and develop an understanding of the Torah in context of our times.

As to the specifics of the First Cause debate, a short comment. The argument I hear the most is that the Entity (God) that FC proposes is just that an unintelligible entity. Even if we were to accept the existence of such an entity, it would be meaningless. That is exactly so. All FC gives us is the deductive conclusion that a non-contingent Being exists. It is our task throughout our lives to figure out what He is not. If we apply ourselves, we believe we will find each to his level of accomplishment, this elusive but all-important Being. This is already a matter of choice and we as Jews have obligated ourselves to pursue in this quest.

כט וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּם מִשָּׁם אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, וּמָצָאתָ: כִּי תִדְרְשֶׁנּוּ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשֶׁךָ.29 But from thence, ye will seek the LORD thy God; and thou shall find Him, if thou search after Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. (Devarim 4:29)

יט הַעִדֹתִי בָכֶם הַיּוֹם, אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ--הַחַיִּים וְהַמָּוֶת נָתַתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ, הַבְּרָכָה וְהַקְּלָלָה; וּבָחַרְתָּ, בַּחַיִּים--לְמַעַן תִּחְיֶה, אַתָּה וְזַרְעֶךָ.19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed; (Devarim 30:19)

Of course, it is a matter of choice. Talking about it and arguing over whether every belief is empirically provable has no meaning. All we have empirically is that there is an Entity out there that is singularly non - contingent; no other Entity can be similar or even conceivable within this Entity’s category. The rest we accept as the ontological explanation of our existence based on this information. We trust that if we work at it we will acquire an understanding of this Entity to a certain extent. Our ancestors have told us that those among them who chose to go on this quest were successful each to his particular level.

So lets move on with the task at hand - understand our Theology in the context of our times.

18 comments:

>All FC gives us is the deductive conclusion that a non-contingent Being exists. It is our task throughout our lives to figure out what He is not. If we apply ourselves, we believe we will find each to his level of accomplishment, this elusive but all-important Being.>"If we apply ourselves, we believe we will find each to his level of accomplishment,"

How? We make believe? We pretend?What you claim to see effects of the FC,others see indifferent nature. All you have is feelings & emotions,nothing else.

> Dismissing the Rabbis, claiming Rambam, Ramban, Rashba, Ralbag, Meiri et al are irrelevant because the science they based their conclusions on no longer is accepted, is the height of arrogance and stupidity. It shows a lack of brains. On the contrary, they took a document given during the times of idolatry and shamanism and showed us that it has exactly the same relevance in dealing with Aristotelian and Platonic cosmology. It is our task to emulate them and do the same in the scientific era of Darwin and Einstein. It will be the task of our descendants to apply the same thinking in a future world where the current science may turn out to be obsolete.

I'm not saying the Rambam was stupid in his time, I'm saying using the Rambam's philosophy is stupid in OUR time. And you pretty much agreed to that.

Again we are tyalking at each other. The methods the Rishonim used are the same we should be using nowadays even if the underlying science has changed. it is arrogance to dismiss their process because the underlying information is no longer valid. Emunat Chachamim is exactly this - respect for their way of thinking and learning from it.

Emulating God is quite in fashion nowadays so i am surprised in the question, Isn't environmentalism emulating God? But all kidding aside, it is the mitzvah of vehqalachta bidrachav- which the rabbis interpret mah hu rachum af ata etc...

Emulating God means excatly that. If one understands after proper reflection that God is existence, He is the FC that is responsible for that one studies His actions and emulates them. The Torah gives us a summary which are the 13 Midot Hashem Keil Rachum Vechanun .... Analyzing each of these 13 words in context of existence (not only humankind but existence in general) one learns how to act. It is not easy and requires a lifetime of work even with the advantage of the experience of past generations.

We do not emulate God through the Mitzvot. The Mitzvot are a tool that God gave us to perfect ourselves so that we do not delude ourselves and really emulate Him and not what we "imagine"is god or Iis actions.

I had an uncle AH a talmid of Galante and Pressburg who used to say" Tzi zein an apikoires darf men kennen lernen andersht is men stam a shoite" - To be an apikores one has to know how to learn otherwise one is stam a fool -

In my opinion most of the skeptics belong to the latter camp and are either lazy or avda behefkeira nicha leh.

I am therefore not doing it as dah mah lehashiv but rather as kol Koreh Bamidbar.

vehqalachta bidrachav- which the rabbis interpret mah hu rachum af ata etc...--------------but the context seems to be for us to do the things that hashem wants us to do (the mitzvot).ma hu rachum af ata... is a nice vort but it's not really what the pasuk is saying. look at the context.

Even though I agree with your position. I think the skeptics have a message for you. You are not explaining yourself well. Nor are you self-conscious enough of the changes you are making.

Maimonides uses Aristotelian and Ptolemaic Science to argue for the first cause, yet XGH sees the medievalism of it. You write that the method is still valid. But you leave out all of the middle steps when explaining the continued validity. 1] you accept the modern reading of Maimonides for a post-Kantian post-Newton world- But you never explain these moves. Even your following post on imitating God is according to Hermann Cohen. 2] You accept the critique of irrationality and the role of imitation of God found in Yeshaya Leibowitz without explaining how he got there from Maimonides (or the general non-acceptance of his historical reconstruction) 3] If the point is to copy Maimonides’ method not his philosophy, then which 20th century proof for God would you think follows his method? 4] How would Maimonides respond to the modern critiques of medieval proofs for God assuming that he accepts the critiques of Hume, Hobbs, and Bertram Russell? Would he agree with Copleston’s response to Russel? To Gilson? To Maritain? To the Existentialists? You have to be more self-conscious and explain your Neo-Maimonidean position. 5]Your appeal to ontology comes from Leibowitz or Maritain? How close is the Ontological claim of these thinkers to the original Maimonidean path of teleology?6] Cause and effect are not a tower of Babel, as a Maimonidean you can come in with perfect clarity and explain the difference between Aristotelain causality, Newtonian causality of our science textbooks, and legal causality. Maimonides opens the Guide by telling his readers that logic and science are prerequisite to a serious discussion.

If you want to make a case for the great Eagle of Maimonidean thought, then you have to slowly and self-consciously make the case.

Great thinkers like R. Meir Simcha Hacohen and the Rogatchover, both of Dvinsk, Rav Kook and RYBS A’H

You send very mixed signals when your Maimonidean presentations are Leibowitz, Cohen, Twersky et al and then you claim decent from a group of Rabbis who used only mildly Maimonides as metaphor and inspiration. RYBS was a Nahmanidean anthropocentric thinker, R. Kook was RIHAL and emotions, and to use the few comments of the Or Samah - then you would be one creating the position. None of them addressed the proofs for God in a way that would satisfy a rationalist, even a frum Maimonidean.

It is clear that the Torah was given at the dawn of the Bronze Age. Its divinity is evident because of its relevance then and through the ages up to our times.

Is this for political reason like Farabi and Strauss?Is this the limits of human knowledge before revelation like Gilson?Maybe the Torah should therefore be science today to keep its relevance, like Ibn Tibbon?If this is ethical like Hermann Cohen, then it was a postulate of reason and not empirical, is that your position?

The way it works is that its followers in each era are obligated to understand its theology in context of the knowledge extant at each period.

Then you are not a Maimonidean, rather a general rationalist accepting the best of every age- a generic form of faith strengthened and purified. You are using Maimonides as an ilan gadol – not his philosophy.But Maimonides clearly rejected the design and creation arguments of his rational predecessors like Rasag, and he rejected the critique of philosophy found in Al-Ghazzali. RYBS used Kierkegaard that is more Al-Ghazzali and Nahmanides- than Maimonides.The skeptics are still at a stage pre-soloveitchik; they are testing if the medieval arguments still work in a literal sense. Especially since there is a new plethora of frum books that take the medieval positions kepeshuto. If you want to reach them then you have to explain yourself step by step.

Technician, I thank you for your comments and I welcome you back. You are right and i am not doing this very systematically. I am more of an autodictat and write as I deal with subjects. I would be honored if you would write guest posts addressing these issues in a systematic way. You can email me at david.guttman@verizon.net .

Technician, As I reread your comments, I believe I see myself in the camp of the general rationlist with rambam as the Ilan Gadol. I just find that in the last few years I have found much of my thinking clarified reading him. I got to this through Leibowitz. I was as confused as many of the skeptics and felt guilty thinking about these issues. Reading Leibowitz I realized that all the questions I was struggling with were acceptable and one could be a religious Jew, nay one became a religious Jew, by dealing with them head on and truthfully. I since have left Leibowitz behind.I believe he ignores MN 3:51 and on especially 3:54. He still is a great thinker.

RYBS is no maimonidean though his insights are great. Strauss to me is problematic. Generally I have a problem with the esoteric interpretations of rambam. I believe one has to come to him as a homo religioso otherwise one loses the flavor.

I enjoyed Jose Faur's Homo Mysticus though there too he gets a little flowery and lets his nemesis, the imagination run free.

I us3e the modern scholars as a tool in understanding but do not find myself bound to them. I have read RASAG and RYHalevi though not as thoroughly and systematically as I should have. i come to this from a religious perspective and if it does not resonate to me i lose interest. i will return if i change my thinking and memory triggers it. Ramban I have read a lot, his perush al hatorah, torat hashem temimah, sha'ar hagemul etc... He helps me as an offset against rambam's point view.

Rav Kook is new to me while RMS I have studied a lot though he is very short and cryptic.

Disclaimer

About Me

I am a businessman living in Brooklyn. I spent time at Slabodka in Bnei Brak and Beth Medrosh Elyon in Monsey during the Sixties. Altough I have to thank the Yeshivos for giving me the basic tools to learn and think, I have found that they have not prepared me to be a thoughtful and practicing Jew once I was confronted with reality. Most of my real learning and personal growth was attained on my own while being active in the real world.